Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/14/2026 has been entered.
Status of claims
Claims 13-15 have been cancelled; Claims 4-6, 16-18, and 22 are withdrawn as non-elected claims; Claim 23 is added as new claim; Claims 1-3, 7-12, 19-21, and 23 remain for examination, wherein claim 1 is an independent claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-3, 7, 9-12, and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito al (US-PG-pub 2019/0106768 A1, thereafter PG’768) in view of Jones et al (WO-9641026 A1, thereafter WO’026).
Regarding claims 1 and 11-12, PG’768 teaches a manufacturing process method for processing lithium ion battery scrap includes recovering metals from a feed stream by leaching to form a slurry including a pregnant leach liquor of soluble metal salts and a solid residue and the leaching step of leaching lithium ion battery scrap and subjecting the resulting leached solution to solid-liquid separation to obtain a first separated solution (abstract and claims of PG’768). PG’768 specify applying leaching process for lithium ion battery scrap obtained through crashing/sieving is added to a leaching solution such as a sulfuric acid solution to leach the scrap. A leached solution thus obtained is subjected to solid-liquid separation using a known apparatus and method such as a filter press or thickener to obtain a first separated solution from which solids contained in the leached solution are removed. (Fig.1 and par.[0034] of PG’768), which reads on all of the essential process steps including sulfuric acid leaching, separating, extracting, and value metal recovering as recited in the instant claims. PG’768 further specify applying adding extracting agents (par.[0020] of PG’768) as claimed in the instant claims 11-12. PG’768 specify adding ammonia to the first separated solution and/or the second separated solution to adjust the pH to remove iron and/or aluminum (par.[0052] and [0056] of PG’768) and PG’768 indicates pH range 4.0-6.0 (Abstract and examples of PG’768), which overlaps the claimed pH range of 4.5 or more as recited in the instant claim 1. Overlapping in pH range creates a prima facie case of obviousness. MPEP 2144 05 I. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to optimize the pH range from the disclosure of PG’768 in order to obtain the optimized metal recovering result (Abstract, examples and claims of PG’768). Since the extraction step is after precipitation step, therefore, comprising the dose of the pregnant leach solution with ammonia would be inherently exist in the solution of PG’768. MPEP 2112 III&IV.
Although PG’768 indicates adding ammonia can be added to the first separated solution to adjust the pH, but PG’768 does not specify ammonium sulphate recovery step as claimed in the instant claim 1. However, applying ammonium sulphate recovery step after leaching process is a well-known technique as demonstrated by WO’026. WO’026 teaches a manufacturing process for the extraction of a metal from Concentra rate (Abstract and claims of WO’026). WO’026 indicates that treating the raffinate to recover ammonium sulphate after Ni/Co leaching (Page 44, lins.26-31 of WO’026). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to apply the well-known technique, that is applying an ammonium sulphate recovery step, as demonstrated by WO’026 in the process of PG’768 in order to build up in the circle (Page 44, lins.26-31 of WO’026).
Regarding claims 2 and 19-20, PG’768 specify leaching feed stream including Li, Cu, Fe, Al, Mn, Co, and Ni and metal recovering (Fig.1 and examples of PG’768), which reads on the claimed limitations in the instant claims.
Regarding claims 3 and 7, PG’768 specify that the “lithium ion battery scrap that can be used may include so-called battery refuse, a mixture of the battery refuse and positive electrode materials with aluminum foils or positive electrode active materials, and materials obtained by roasting, chemically treating, crashing and/or sieving the battery refuse as required, and so on” (par.[0030] of PG’768), which reads on the pretreating process as recited in the instant claims since sieving is a pretreating beneficiation step.
Regarding claims 9-10, PG’768 provides example of applying sulfuric acid leaching without adding extra pressure at 70oC (par.[0070]-[0077] of PG’768).
Regarding claim 21, PG’768 specify that: “More particularly, each valuable metal can be recovered by firstly recovering iron and aluminum, subsequently recovering manganese and copper, then cobalt, and then nickel, and finally leaving lithium in the aqueous phase.” (par.[0005] of PG’768), which reads on the claimed limitation as claimed in the instant claim.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PG’768 in view of WO’026 and further in view of Johnson et al (US-PG-pub 2017/0233848 A1, thereafter PG’848).
Regarding claim 8, PG’768 specify that the “lithium ion battery scrap that can be used may include so-called battery refuse, a mixture of the battery refuse and positive electrode materials with aluminum foils or positive electrode active materials, and materials obtained by roasting, chemically treating, crashing and/or sieving the battery refuse as required, and so on” (par.[0030] of PG’768), but PG’768 in view of WO’026 does not specify applying one or more classification step as claimed in the instant claim. However, applying proper classification/floatation step in a Li-bearing material recovering is a well-known technique as demonstrated by PG’848. PG’848 teaches a manufacturing process for recovery of lithium from lithium bearing mica rich minerals (Abstract, examples, and claims of PG’848). PG’848 specify that lepidolite in pegmatite bodies can be separated from the gangue minerals by flotation, or classification (par.[0086] of PG’848). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to apply the well-known technique, that is applying proper classification/floatation step in a Li-bearing material recovering, as demonstrated by PG’848 in the process of PG’768 in view of WO’026 in order to obtain the optimized metal recovering result (Abstract, par.[0086] and examples of PG’848).
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PG’768 in view of WO’026 and further in view of Zhang et al (CN 111842411 A, with on-line translation, thereafter CN’411).
Regarding claim 23, WO’026 indicates that treating the raffinate to recover ammonium sulphate after Ni/Co leaching (Page 44, lins.26-31 of WO’026). It is noted that PG’768 in view of WO’026 does not specify removing water from the leaching solution to cause crystallization of the ammonium sulphate as claimed in the instant claim. However, removing water from the leaching solution to recover the crystallization of the ammonium sulphate is a well-known technique as demonstrated by CN’411. CN’411 teaches manufacturing process of for recycling high-purity aluminum oxide iron scandium vanadium titanium oxide and rare earth element by red mud (Abstract, Technical field and claims of CN’411). CN’411 teaches that “The liquid is sent to the MVR (Mechanical Vapor Recompression) evaporator for evaporation and crystallization to recover ammonium sulfate” (Abstract, examples, and claims of CN’411). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to apply the well-known technique, that is removing water from the leaching solution to recover the crystallization of the ammonium sulphate, as demonstrated by CN’411 in the process of PG’768 in view of WO’026 in order to recover the crystallization of the ammonium sulphate (Abstract, (Abstract, examples, and claims of CN’411).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments to the art rejection to Claims 1-3, 7-12, 19-21, and 23 have been considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding the arguments related to the newly added claim 23, the Examiner’s position has been stated as above.
The Applicant’s arguments have been summarized as following: (refer to the Advisory action dated on 1/7/2026):
A, WO’026 does not teach or suggest an ammonium sulfate recovery step following Li recovery; WO’026 explicitly recommends the removal of ammonium sulfate only if Ni raffinate is present. A Li or other raffinate is not mentioned. the suggested combination only the Ni step gives the skilled person reason to remove ammonium sulfate if a Ni raffinate is present.
B, Neither PG'768 nor WO'026 disclose the removal of ammonium sulfate after the extraction of Li.
C, claim 19 is separately patentable over the suggested combination since claim 19 indicates Ni extraction and claim 23 applying dehydration in order to effect crystallization.
In response,
Regarding the argument A, PG’768 specify adding ammonia to the first separated solution. As pointed in the rejection in the previous office action dated 5/27/2025 and 10/30/2025, WO’026 teaches a manufacturing process for the extraction of a metal from Concentra rate (Abstract and claims of WO’026). WO’026 indicates that treating the raffinate to recover ammonium sulphate after Ni/Co leaching (Page 44, lins.26-31 of WO’026). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to apply the well-known technique, that is applying an ammonium sulphate recovery step, as demonstrated by WO’026 in the process of PG’768 in order to build up in the circle (Page 44, lins.26-31 of WO’026). It is noted that the Applicant argued against the combined prior arts individually, one should not show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In the instant case, PG’768 in view of WO’026 is applied to the instant claims 1-3, 7, 9-12 and 19-21; and PG’848 is further cited for claim 8. The reason and motivation for the combination can the previous office action dated 5/27/2025 and 10/30/2025. WO'026 does not exclude Li or other raffinate in the process.
Regarding the argument B, WO’026 indicates that treating the raffinate to recover ammonium sulphate after Ni/Co leaching (Page 44, lins.26-31 of WO’026). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to apply ammonium sulphate removing after Li extraction.
Regarding the argument C, PG'768 teaches leaching feed stream including Li, Co, and Ni and metal recovering (Fig.1 and examples of PG'768), which reads on the limitation as claimed in the instant claim 19.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIE YANG whose telephone number is (571)270-1884. The examiner can normally be reached on IFP.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jonathan J Johnson can be reached on 571-272-1177. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JIE YANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1734